Are Carbs necessary when Bulking?

[Snahrl]

(3) Mass is based on level of flexation and muscle tear NOT how many pounds you can throw down.

Don't the two go hand in hand?

How do you train to add muscle mass as opposed to strength? Is there any difference?

[empresscat]

Modern day Inuit's are westernized and eat nothing like their ancestors.

Not to mention, infant mortality is more a function of healthcare than anything else.

Agreed - do you have statistics on these historically?
I'd be interested in the comparison.

[empresscat]

empirical evidence and personal/anecdotal experience is king.

Agreed. Which is why I said "am not for or against a ketogenic diet. I may even experiment with it for a few months myself. My impression is that it works better for some people, but is not as efficient as a more balanced diet."

Definitely willing to look at examples of results people have gotten from all kinds of diets... though only experience will tell me what works for me.

[A-rod]

Your body is made to fuction with glucose as the primary fuel, therefore they are necessary for optimun results. Theoretically you can bulk with higher caloric density (fatty) foods but you`ll be working using ketones as the primary souce of energy from fat oxidation.

[Snahrl]

Your body is made to fuction with glucose as the primary fuel, therefore they are necessary for optimun results. Theoretically you can bulk with higher caloric density (fatty) foods but you`ll be working using ketones as the primary souce of energy from fat oxidation.

Your body's main source of energy is actually fat, not glucose.

[Snahrl]

Agreed - do you have statistics on these historically?
I'd be interested in the comparison.

All we really have are first hand accounts, unfortunately, seeing as though western scientific principles of study were put into motion well after these societies had become westernized.

[psychojoe]

Your body is made to fuction with glucose as the primary fuel

Your body's main source of energy is actually fat, not glucose.

will both of you explain what aspects of fat and glucose metabolism lead you to exalt one or the other to "primary fuel" status.

[empresscat]

hah- actually, they are both right.

The body uses glucose for fuel.
It first uses the stored glycogen in the muscles and organs, because this is already broken down and easily available for use.

However, it uses stored fat more than any other source (unless you are diabetic and your insulin levels are not controlled, in which case you can't metabolize fat correctly.) BUT the fat has to be metabolized into glucose for the body to use it. (Protein will also be metabolized at the same time, whether dietary or from the muscle... protein is easier to burn, so the body uses it before fat, but doesn't use as much in the longer term.) This process means it's good for long-term stable energy, but not efficient enough for short bursts of intense energy - which carbohydrates are better at supplying fuel for.

At least, that's how I understand it. I may be a bit off.

[psychojoe]

hah- actually, they are both right.

The body uses glucose for fuel.
It first uses the stored glycogen in the muscles and organs, because this is already broken down and easily available for use.

All sources of energy are used simultaneously, at all times, in differing proportions according to the type of activity.

However, it uses stored fat more than any other source (unless you are diabetic and your insulin levels are not controlled, in which case you can't metabolize fat correctly.) BUT the fat has to be metabolized into glucose for the body to use it.
That isnt true. Fatty acids have two-carbon units cleaved from them during lipolysis; acetate, which enters the krebs cycle as acetyl-CoA. As far as I'm aware, fatty acids are never gluconeogenic substrates. EDIT: it can be, but never yeilds net glucose since as many carbons are lost as CO2 in TCA as were donated from the fatty acids.

(Protein will also be metabolized at the same time, whether dietary or from the muscle... protein is easier to burn, so the body uses it before fat,

Again, fuel uses arent sequential but concurrent.
but doesn't use as much in the longer term.) This process means it's good for long-term stable energy, but not efficient enough for short bursts of intense energy -

which carbohydrates are better at supplying fuel for.
I agree with that part. Fat can not be mobilised quickly enough to supply energy as fast as glycogen. Glycogen can be very rapidly broken down, and it's glucose can undergo glycolysis, which is anaerobic, producing energy in times of high oxygen demand. AFAIK, fat can not undergo any form of anaerobic respiration and so in exercise it's use is limited, in part, by the muscular oxygen supply.

At least, that's how I understand it. I may be a bit off.
Same here.

___

[empresscat]

Thanks for the clarification!

[beaul]

2 words.... "ANABOLIC DIET" by Dr. Mauro Di Pasquale. There is a great thread over at t-nation on it. It is long as hell but well worth the read if you are interested in doing it. Or you can search for the e-book on google. http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=658379&pageNo=0

very low carb/regular protein/high fat during the week. Then an all out carb frenzy from 12-36 hours on the weekend to load the muscles. I have been using this diet for 2 months and it works great so far. I have plenty of energy even by the end of the week. I still get good pumps even after the 5th day of no carbs.

You do a 12 day transition phase that shifts your body into burning fat for all your daily energy needs. So to fuel your workouts you run on the carbs you loaded off of on the weekend.

I am bulking right now. Going from cut to bulk i have easily put on the first 10 pounds in less than a month. We will see how it goes from here, hopefully keeping it to 1-1.25 pounds a week.

[grapemaster]

when no glucose is there your body will actually start breaking down amino acids for glucose until you are actually IN ketosis. for people who have never been in it their cells are not used to running on ketones so it might never be optimal or atleast take a long time to get used to it. you have to understand that the indians and eskimos who are so often quoted were NEVER used to carbs, they had always ran on ketogenic states therefore their bodies are better primed for it, other people aren't as much and varies person to person, thats why it makes some people have lack of energy and fogginess.

the three main sources of energy are glucose, glycogen and fat.

yes all sources can be energy but they are all BEST at certain things, glucose for energy and brain function, protein for muscle tissue, cell repair and various other functions, fat for cell and membrane function.

glucose IS the primary source for the brain and intermediate for other tissues, it is broken down from glycogen or from the glycerol in fat if enough is no present

also dietary fat of course CAN also equal body fat just like excess carbs, when it is broken down it is either absorbed by muscles, or absorbed by fat tissue as storage.

all of the above is why eating the stuff in balance is optimal (especially for fueling workouts), though you can adjust depending on your activity levels.

optimal is the key word here folks, there are many ways to produce gains, the body is well adapt to running on different stuff, that does not mean its optimal. you won't see any elite athletes eating low carb diets. yes it will burn fat though. most body building diets generally assume you are already in pretty good shape and have been training for awhile, so they are tailored to in shape people. if you are obese or trying to cut, by all means do your low carb to get those goals, but don't think for performance means these are optimal settings, you are fooling yourself.

[Andrew.Cook]

was that meant to be directed at me? Id assume so, except that I dont have pictures up that I know of...

You got your screen name from where?

Read it again, slowly... slowly.... slowly.

[Andrew.Cook]

There's a REASON she has difficulty bulking:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...30&postcount=4

I am aware of her "issues." Original statement stands. If I were seeking advice on bulking, I would take it from someone that is a success story.

Though I'm looking at as many photos of people who advocate a ketogenic diet as I can, and just not seeing those who are big AND lean... though I've seen pics of people who are one or the other... so I'm remaining skeptical. (And I definitely welcome pointers to any photos I've missed.)

Bulking... big and lean? Whoa, way off here. Bulking is going to come along with some fat gain. I'm not saying a +10% gain, but you can't expect to be below 10% or above 20% IMO (due to hormone level drop offs that occur outside of this sweet spot). I'm not here to tell people why they need to bulk, however. Bulking should entail some bodyfat. End of story.

Not to mention, one of the favorite arguements in favor or keto is that it's how our ancestors ate (the caveman diet) is just plain wrong. Pre-agriculture societies got the bulk of their diet from roots, berries, and *small, lean* wild animals. The ratio varied depending on location. The influxes of larger amounts of protein from big game (who were also much leaner than today's commercially raised animals) came infrequently. In general, it seems that around half their calories came from carbohydrates (though these were mostly fruits and vegetables, with a few wild grains.) In most cases, the women did the daily foraging, and the men went off on hunting parties.

Eh? Ya think that "cavemen" (I'm laughing inside at this term) might have been big and strong because they didn't have modern medicine to keep the weak alive? Think that maybe it isn't about WHAT we eat so much as it is about who we can manage to save from natural selection? Too many factors involved to BEGIN to make this kind of half witted argument. Not saying it is YOUR argument, just saying it is beyond silly.

I've also read that "the Eskimo eat blubber and they don't have health problems."
Um, OK. The Inuit ("eskimo") have a high infant mortality rate, and a low life expectancy (lower than the Thai and Chinese) - according to Canadian figures - a paltry 62.6 years for men and 71.1 for women (compared to 77 and 82.2 for the general population)

Yes, the Inuit... there are a swarthy people each and every one built for bodybuilding *snicker*

Now, there IS clear evidence linking processed foods - whether they are carbs, proteins or fats - with increased cancer and heart disease and diabetes.

Yup... so eat your veggies, which are likely sprayed with chemicals. Damn, we can't win, can we? Everything around us kills us slowly, but far slower than a wild tiger or some other angry caveman that wants your bludgeoned squirrel. Just saying, all things being equal, a little cancer (though sucky for the individual... as an understatement) is WAY better than being eaten alive or dying from dehydration because you have "intestinal issues" from the bad food you just shoved in your head hole after clubbing your neighbor for it

I am not for or against a ketogenic diet. I may even experiment with it for a few months myself. My impression is that it works better for some people, but is not as efficient as a more balanced diet.

I'm not for ketogenic diets... I could care less what other people do.

I like that you end this all with one highly sane and very wise statement
"...but is not as efficient as a more balanced diet." Enough said. Reps to you.

[Andrew.Cook]

Just because I can't doesn't mean I don't know how. I'm a second year kinesiology major. Please don't put me down until you've done your research about me - don't judge a book by its cover

thanks for backing me empress

A kinesiology major? Second year? Good lord, why should I ever have doubted you? lol.

You may be a great person, but I care very little about that. Taking BULKING advice from a waif of a person (girl or man) makes no dang sense. Your personal issues aside, you may "know" something, but spitting out what someone else tells you is right is crap compared to experience. NOW, that being said, if someone else with your issues strolls in and gives the whole "I weigh nothing, I have type umpty diabetes..." THEN you proudly puff out your chest, Ms. Thang, and trumpet your vast experience in this subject area to the world. At which time I will gladly defer all questions to you.

My point to you is that we all have a time and a place to speak. I understand your desire to help, and even applaud you on it... but, and this might be the only time you hear this, I think you got a little too big for your britches on this one.

[Andrew.Cook]

Agreed. Which is why I said "am not for or against a ketogenic diet. I may even experiment with it for a few months myself. My impression is that it works better for some people, but is not as efficient as a more balanced diet."

Definitely willing to look at examples of results people have gotten from all kinds of diets... though only experience will tell me what works for me.

What about carb cycling? Best of both worlds?

[Lil Freek]

I agree. regardless of what you do, carbs are an important part of anyones diet.
Fruit contains crucial nutrients, likewise oats. I couldnt imagine a diet without pastas, fruit, oats, brown rice and whole wheat bread.

agreed + reps.

I'm on a cut, and I still find carbs in my diet. They aren't as plentiful as most others, but i keep them in my system as i do cardio and weights and don't want my body to eliminate muscle due to lack of protein and carbs.

Might make my diet a little less efficient - but i'm trying to adapt that my eating habits aren't a diet, and just a new way of eating. I'll increase my carb/fat intake again once I'm done cutting, but even with carbs in my system, I'm doing good.

[eatingisfun]

I think it's pretty obvious which nutrient the body prefers. That is carbohydrates. You can't get your body to burn fat as the main source of ATP production unless you restrict carbs to almost nothing.

[empresscat]

What about carb cycling? Best of both worlds?

I had heard of carb cycling, but just now looked it up... interestingly, I already do this! Well, not exactly, since I don't have any no carb days - more like low, medium and high.

Since I'm training for an endurance event, I found I had to add more carbohydrates in proportion to the amount of exercise I am doing. On days when I walk over 15 miles, I eat a LOT of carbs... I tend to increase protein and fat slightly, too, as I need a much higher amount of calories on those days.

I found out what worked by tweaking my diet as I increased my mileage. When I got wiped out too quickly, I found that eating more carbs helped. When I had trouble digesting, I knew I'd eaten too much protein at one sitting. (My body slows digestion dramatically when I'm on one of those long walks.)

But basically, I increase my carbs proportionately to how hard I'm working out, and if I'm expending an intense amount of calories (as I do when walking for 5-7 hours straight) I increase everything.

So far, I'm having pretty good results with my weight loss, and have definitely been increasing lean muscle at the same time... though I know that will get harder in a few months.

[Joe D]

i just follow a 45%carbs, 35%protein, 20%fat ratio. you keto people must have a real doozy ****ting.

[empresscat]

i just follow a 45%carbs, 35%protein, 20%fat ratio. you keto people must have a real doozy ****ting.

I think most of them add fiber supps

[Ledge]

"this has nothing to do with keto dieting (which I would never do). Keto yourself silly."

absolutely agree.

"Except for the fact that the only real dietary sources of vitamin B12, Vitamin A, and vitamin D come from animal fat? Not to mention, your diet would be getting plenty of trace minerals from the meat?
You act as if 'carbs' are somehow superior, nutrition wise, to meat/fat for humans"

Nothing against meat, although ive reduced my intake of red meat, i still enjoy a steak. You miss the point, I never portrayed carbs as superior to anything, just that they are important in the complete makeup of a healthy diet.

[Hunterlaar]

2 words.... "ANABOLIC DIET" by Dr. Mauro Di Pasquale. There is a great thread over at t-nation on it. It is long as hell but well worth the read if you are interested in doing it. Or you can search for the e-book on google. http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=658379&pageNo=0

very low carb/regular protein/high fat during the week. Then an all out carb frenzy from 12-36 hours on the weekend to load the muscles. I have been using this diet for 2 months and it works great so far. I have plenty of energy even by the end of the week. I still get good pumps even after the 5th day of no carbs.

You do a 12 day transition phase that shifts your body into burning fat for all your daily energy needs. So to fuel your workouts you run on the carbs you loaded off of on the weekend.

I am bulking right now. Going from cut to bulk i have easily put on the first 10 pounds in less than a month. We will see how it goes from here, hopefully keeping it to 1-1.25 pounds a week.

Is a carb fest on the weekend going to stay in your system and give you enough energy that lasts all the week ahead for your workouts???

[hynox.rain]

I like carbs,
they taste real nice,
so give me oats and breads and rice.

I like fat too,
oh yes I do,
so give me nuts and cheesy goo.

I think there is evidence of high carb and low carb diets working for bulking. I've never bulked but I imagine when I do, a timed carb diet or maybe carb cycling are good ideas, and i'd still prefer to get my carbs in from fruits, veggies, some dex/maltodex and milk, but each to their own. It's all about finding your own path, then writing a book and selling it as a new fad diet!

[Ricky_k]

dont eat carbs ya mite lose ur abs !!!!!!!!!!!

shut up and drink ur milk

then eat ur carbs

[hynox.rain]

milk = t3h not carbs?

brain explowed

[jaim91]

dont eat carbs ya mite lose ur abs !!!!!!!!!!!

shut up and drink ur milk

then eat ur carbs

hynox,

I would trust this guy, look at his abs

[cobain67]

Bump for a good read..

[user179143]

I'm on rippetoe's, and that works wonders, I try to have man like 3000-3500 cals. a day and Carbs 50% of that.

Results? 14 lbs. on 3 weeks, I aint complaining

This post opened my eyes that I will need MORE CARBS, MORE !

and just because of this post I'll up them, gotta luv dem, ohh, my sweet sweet carbs.....

umm you had some really good gains.

9 pounds of fat
3 pounds of water
and 2 pounds of muscle

give yourself a pat on the back buddy.

lmao, just eat your damn carbs you need them, just dont overeat, bulking is when you need carbs alot for energy,
and a keto bulk?

wtf, i suggest either you do keto to lose weight, or dont do keto at all.

if you wanna bulk, then carb up, cause u damn well need them

oats ,etc are essential, and you need PWO CARBS for insulin spike, so what are you gonna do? eat prottein + fat? no that doesnt cut it.

[grapemaster]

I'm on rippetoe's, and that works wonders, I try to have man like 3000-3500 cals. a day and Carbs 50% of that.

Results? 14 lbs. on 3 weeks, I aint complaining

This post opened my eyes that I will need MORE CARBS, MORE !

and just because of this post I'll up them, gotta luv dem, ohh, my sweet sweet carbs.....

14 pounds in 3 weeks, your getting fat dude... slow down, you can probably only put on 1.5-2 pounds a muscle a week if you are doing everything perfectly...and that is shooting high.